Case for Teddy?

[slats]

1 minute ago, Pac said:

I agree the plan is getting him into the lineup but not at the expense of undermining his team first mantra.  If the Jets start McCown and are winning then we can expect to see him until we're officially eliminated from playoff contention.

The only way around that is to hand Darnold the starting job week 1 but again..  unless Darnold shows he's up to the task Bowles' risks losing some respect in the locker room if he starts a clearly inferior QB.

 

That's not an issue. Everyone on the team knows Sam's the (very near) future. Darnold isn't going to be seen as clearly inferior, either. 

 

[Pac]

1 minute ago, slats said:

That's not an issue. Everyone on the team knows Sam's the (very near) future. Darnold isn't going to be seen as clearly inferior, either. 

 

not totally disagreeing with you..  just don't think Bowles is going to abandoned his old school it takes a village approach to satiate the masses by starting Darnold if the team is winning with McCown.

[slats]

1 minute ago, Pac said:

not totally disagreeing with you..  just don't think Bowles is going to abandoned his old school it takes a village approach to satiate the masses by starting Darnold if the team is winning with McCown.

This is why I said it should be an organizational plan that gets stuck to, and not some decision Bowles makes from the seat of his pants. 

[j4jets]

52 minutes ago, slats said:

This just isn't true. I looked back 50 years, and couldn't find a single top three QB who didn't start any games as a rookie. Joe Namath started his third game as a pro in 1965. 

I also looked back 50 years and found that about 39% of the QBs taken in the top three were busts. So Darnold isn’t a surefire hall of famer just yet, even though we all hope he is. 

[Pac]

26 minutes ago, slats said:

This is why I said it should be an organizational plan that gets stuck to, and not some decision Bowles makes from the seat of his pants. 

There's no one in the organization that would advocate adhering to a plan to start Darnold in week 5 if the Jets are 4-1.

[j4jets]

31 minutes ago, Pac said:

not totally disagreeing with you..  just don't think Bowles is going to abandoned his old school it takes a village approach to satiate the masses by starting Darnold if the team is winning with McCown.

I don’t think we have much to worry about McCown winning is games. We were 5-8 in his career year. I doubt we start 4-1 whiles he’s 39. If we did by some miracle, I can guarantee it won’t be due to McCown. 

[CanadaSteve]

21 hours ago, Joe W. Namath said:

"Let Bridgewater START over McCown to see what he is"

You know what Bridgewater is.  He is a crappy and now injured qb.  He makes Josh McCown look like Bret Favre.

 

Yeah, Bridgewater sucks compared to the GOAT McCown.

 

[CanadaSteve]

20 hours ago, johnnysd said:

I give up. I asked you why you think sitting Darnold is beneficial for Darnold's development. You never addressed that, you just have a list of excuses not to start him. And you are the one being hostile not me, I was curious at your reasoning but you seem to think that your emails on clear on the point, but I see no point just excuses. HOSTILE BECAUSE I HAVE LISTED THE REASONS MULTIPLE TIMES TO MULTIPLE PEOPLE AND YET....I NEVER SAID HE SHOULD'T START THIS YEAR, JUST NOT RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE, AND THAT BRIDGEWATER SHOULD OVER McCOWN.

And yes there are a number of articles advocating sitting him, with the main reasons being "Rodgers did" and he needs to change his throwing motion. Rodgers path is from a different era and situation that Darnolds and not even remotely similar. If we had a HOF QB at the helm, I would advocate that Darnold sits too. We dont. YOU ARE RIGHT.  WE DO NOT. 

Second on his throwing motion, the Jets are NOT changing it and shouldnt. It looks elongated but his release is actually one of the quickest in the NFL AND he is deadly accurate with that motion even from unbalanced positions and on the move. It is a strength not a weakness and actually pretty similar to Favre. NEVER SAID HE SHOULD .  UNLESS HIS THROWING MOTION IS CAUSING PROBLEMS, LEAVE NATURAL ABILITY ALONE.

It comes down to this: In todays NFL I see no argument that can adequately explain why a QB watching from the sideline will be in a better position to succeed.  AND I DISAGREE.  A 50 PERCENT FAILURE RATE TO HIGH DRAFT PICKS COMPARED TO ABOUT A 18 PERCENT FAILURE RATE OF NHL PLAYERS DRAFTED IN TOP 3 MIGHT BE EVIDENCE THAT PLAYERS WHO DEVELOP IN A MINOR LEAGUE SYSTEM ACTUALLY SUCCEED AT A HIGHER RATE 

 

And no, I did not check the rate in baseball.  But I could.  You may disagree and say comparing sports is apples to oranges, but I again will disagree.  We don't HAVE to agree on this.  

My stance has been since drafting the kid:

If Bridgewater is playing equal to McCown, start Bridgewater.  It could increase his trade value.  There is NO benefit to this team in starting McCown.  NONE.  Let Darnold come in slowly.  Don't need to rush it.  IF that meant him sitting a whole year because Bridewater started and played as good/slightly better where he left off, then leave him in.  If not, Darnold should start and some point this season, because we are not doing anything anyway, and get some real-game experience.

My other comments were, and I stated, that this is another great example as to questioning why the NFL does not have a developmental league like sports like MLB and NHL.  I believe the reasoning behind lower failure rates with higher picks is they get real-game experience at a minor league level, hone their skills, and then make the jump to 'pro' status (elite pro if you will, as you are a 'professional' in high enough levels in minor league ball and hockey. 

Sorry if I have come across as hostile, but I have stated my reasoning's multiple times with multiple guys.  It is fine to disagree, but when people are stating, for the 5th time, I have not stated WHY I think this way, when clearly I did give my reasoning's, it gets annoying 

 

[CanadaSteve]

13 hours ago, slats said:

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, my mistake. 

What is the reasoning behind all this?  If he sat for a year, so what?  It isn't going to hurt him.  I have no issue with him starting part-way through the season if things warrant it.  I see no reason to start him out of the gate for the myriad reasons I have listed, and suggest it better if Bridgewater started over McCown.  

Yet, here you are again.  The ONLY thing we disagree on is him sitting the whole year.  Its not like I see any reason why he SHOULD sit the whole season if we are 2-6 at the halfway point.  But I don't see any reason to rush him in if we are 6-2 at the half-way point, and believe it will 'stunt his growth' if Bridgewater was playing well to start him to appease the 'get him in there' crowd. 

Can we at least agree on this so we can stop this back-and-forth?  

[CanadaSteve]

11 hours ago, j4jets said:

I also looked back 50 years and found that about 39% of the QBs taken in the top three were busts. So Darnold isn’t a surefire hall of famer just yet, even though we all hope he is. 

It's actually higher.  About 46 percent.  The rate goes above 50 percent if you include top ten QB's drafted.  

[slats]

13 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

What is the reasoning behind all this?  If he sat for a year, so what?  It isn't going to hurt him.  I have no issue with him starting part-way through the season if things warrant it.  I see no reason to start him out of the gate for the myriad reasons I have listed, and suggest it better if Bridgewater started over McCown.  

Yet, here you are again.  The ONLY thing we disagree on is him sitting the whole year.  Its not like I see any reason why he SHOULD sit the whole season if we are 2-6 at the halfway point.  But I don't see any reason to rush him in if we are 6-2 at the half-way point, and believe it will 'stunt his growth' if Bridgewater was playing well to start him to appease the 'get him in there' crowd. 

Can we at least agree on this so we can stop this back-and-forth?  

Sitting Sam for the entire year would stunt his growth. He'd get few practice reps during the regular season. A few weeks on the bench to start the season, fine, but nothing more than that. I suspect it's already clear to the Jets brass that Darnold is the most talented QB on the team, it's just a matter of getting him ready to take over. Something they were actively doing during the spring practices, giving him the most reps and a lot with the starters. 

If I'm sitting Sam for the opening month +/-, and McCown and Bridgewater are playing about equal, I'd start McCown. Why? One, because McCown is far more likely to be on the team next year and already has the trust of his teammates. Two? Actually, the opposite of your reasoning: I think if he starts in the regular season, he'll lose trade value. Let him "run" around with the twos and threes looking like a superstar in the preseason and, if he's not traded before the season opener, put him on ice and let his prospective suitors check out the sweet film of him being a man amongst UPS drivers over the summer. 

I find myself unconcerned that the Jets might be 6-2 behind Bridgewater at the midway point. I don't think Teddy is even being given a chance to win the starting job, and the Jets probably won't win many more than six games all year. As I said, I think the Jets know that Darnold is their best QB and that they fully intend to get him into the starting line-up sooner rather than later. I don't need him to start opening day, but it won't shock me if he does. 

[#27TheDominator]

1 hour ago, CanadaSteve said:

What is the reasoning behind all this?  If he sat for a year, so what?  It isn't going to hurt him.  I have no issue with him starting part-way through the season if things warrant it.  I see no reason to start him out of the gate for the myriad reasons I have listed, and suggest it better if Bridgewater started over McCown.  

Yet, here you are again.  The ONLY thing we disagree on is him sitting the whole year.  Its not like I see any reason why he SHOULD sit the whole season if we are 2-6 at the halfway point.  But I don't see any reason to rush him in if we are 6-2 at the half-way point, and believe it will 'stunt his growth' if Bridgewater was playing well to start him to appease the 'get him in there' crowd. 

Can we at least agree on this so we can stop this back-and-forth?  

The two issues with this philosophy are:

1.  Whether you have any statistical evidence that QBs are helped by sitting?  Even anecdotal.  I do not see any.  Your argument appears to be - it won't hurt.  On that we can agree to disagree.  Especially with the newer (lack of) practice rules. 

2. You seem to be talking about what to do with the team is playing well.  I disagree with you there because Darnold is more important than 2018.  Going 10-6 is not a big deal, having a legit NFL QB is. More imporantly, if they go 6-2 with Bridgewater - what is your plan?  Play him the rest of the season?  Then what?  Give him $25M for 2019? 

[JohnnyLV]

14 hours ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

What really gets me is some of these very impatient jet fans. Not too long ago, everyone sat qbs for yr or 2. It was thought by almost all sitting a qb allows them time to focus on all the little things that will make him great 1 day. Instead of rushing him where he may not have time to just worry about improving on all the little things anymore. Maybe they waiting too long in some instances, but were they all wrong those days ? I know college is more pro ready these days. But darnold started what 18 games ? 

My problem is fans are so impatient, they just want to see Sam Darnold play. I do too, but not at the price of stunting his development. Most fans have a extreme bias, they can’t wait any longer. They need to see a future franchise qb right now. We know Mac and Bowles will not let their impatient bias hurt the development of darnold. Let’s be thankfully the fans are not calling the shots. 

Not too long ago, teams could work with players year round, hold 2 a day training camp practices to give young players tons of reps, and hold as many padded practices as they wanted. None of that is true anymore.

In the "not to long ago" it was a valid consideration to develop a QB by sitting him for a year, because he would still get a TON of practice and individual attention. Now that is not true. The Jets have a choice between 27 practices and a handful of reps each week on the Scout team, or 27 practices, reps with the ones for 2 or 3 practices every week and roughly 800 live snaps in NFL games.

Can anyone honestly tell me he will develop better with that ludicrously small amount of work before next year's OTAS?

It is a different world for QBs under the NDA. Darnold pretty much must start a minimum of 12 or 13 games if we him to develop, and not lose a year. But he should start Day One. 

 

 

 

[JohnnyLV]

13 hours ago, slats said:

That's not an issue. Everyone on the team knows Sam's the (very near) future. Darnold isn't going to be seen as clearly inferior, either. 

 

This is very very true. Even for veterans, they will get behind an elite Top 3 prospect as their QB. Starting Darnold has no possibility of losing the locker room. 

[JohnnyLV]

13 hours ago, j4jets said:

I also looked back 50 years and found that about 39% of the QBs taken in the top three were busts. So Darnold isn’t a surefire hall of famer just yet, even though we all hope he is. 

What does that matter? There were 4 highly rated QBs and the Jets got not only the one they valued the highest but the highest rated QB on the majority of boards, and the prospect many think is the best since Luck. Can he bust? I guess, but most of the busts had much much much bigger question marks than Darnold, and the fact that QBs bust is not a reason on any level not to start him.

[JohnnyLV]

13 hours ago, Pac said:

There's no one in the organization that would advocate adhering to a plan to start Darnold in week 5 if the Jets are 4-1.

Not true. Giants did a similar thing benching Warner. None of this matters, he is starting Day 1. Anyone that doubts that just go listen to the Bates interview and it is obvious his only thought is starting Darnold. Plus he is the #3 pick in the draft, Top 10 in jersey sales, and the future of this franchise that WILL put more fannies in the seat. QBs like Darnold start. Bowles will not on any level have full authority in the decision when Darnold starts. Nor will the doofus in Cleveland either. The second Tyrod shows even a little bit of weakness, Mayfield plays.

[JohnnyLV]

2 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

And no, I did not check the rate in baseball.  But I could.  You may disagree and say comparing sports is apples to oranges, but I again will disagree.  We don't HAVE to agree on this.  

My stance has been since drafting the kid:

If Bridgewater is playing equal to McCown, start Bridgewater.  It could increase his trade value.  There is NO benefit to this team in starting McCown.  NONE.  Let Darnold come in slowly.  Don't need to rush it.  IF that meant him sitting a whole year because Bridewater started and played as good/slightly better where he left off, then leave him in.  If not, Darnold should start and some point this season, because we are not doing anything anyway, and get some real-game experience.

My other comments were, and I stated, that this is another great example as to questioning why the NFL does not have a developmental league like sports like MLB and NHL.  I believe the reasoning behind lower failure rates with higher picks is they get real-game experience at a minor league level, hone their skills, and then make the jump to 'pro' status (elite pro if you will, as you are a 'professional' in high enough levels in minor league ball and hockey. 

Sorry if I have come across as hostile, but I have stated my reasoning's multiple times with multiple guys.  It is fine to disagree, but when people are stating, for the 5th time, I have not stated WHY I think this way, when clearly I did give my reasoning's, it gets annoying 

 

No one argues that the NFL needs a developmental league. But there isnt one, so that is not an option for Darnold. QB failure rates are high because it is the most difficult position to succeed at in any sport in the world. So many factors come into play it is ridiculous. I might be more on your side if we were hearing chatter already that he is struggling with the playbook, or struggling in the huddle, or struggling to play under center, or not picking up things quickly. But Bates and Bowles BTW have said the complete opposite in relation to Darnold. He also actually fits Bates offense much better than the other guys to begin with.

I agree with you on McClown. I truly believe if the Jets had offered him a decent salary as assistant QB coach he would have taken it. I do expect him to be QB coach next season.

 

[Pac]

6 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Not true. Giants did a similar thing benching Warner. None of this matters, he is starting Day 1. Anyone that doubts that just go listen to the Bates interview and it is obvious his only thought is starting Darnold. Plus he is the #3 pick in the draft, Top 10 in jersey sales, and the future of this franchise that WILL put more fannies in the seat. QBs like Darnold start. Bowles will not on any level have full authority in the decision when Darnold starts. Nor will the doofus in Cleveland either. The second Tyrod shows even a little bit of weakness, Mayfield plays.

The giants were like 5-5 when eli went in..  I'd be fine putting darnold in at 5 and 5.

Bates quote from last year was this isn't triple A.  I'm sure he wants to see Darnold win the job but he's not going to give it to him.

[#27TheDominator]

7 minutes ago, Pac said:

The giants were like 5-5 when eli went in..  I'd be fine putting darnold in at 5 and 5.

Bates quote from last year was this isn't triple A.  I'm sure he wants to see Darnold win the job but he's not going to give it to him.

They were 5-4 but had lost 3 of their last 4 and were coming off a loss to the Josh McCown/Emmitt Smith Cardinals. 

I'm not sure comments made about why Hackenberg wasn't getting playing time are applicable in the real world. 

[Jetsplayer21]

1 hour ago, johnnysd said:

Not too long ago, teams could work with players year round, hold 2 a day training camp practices to give young players tons of reps, and hold as many padded practices as they wanted. None of that is true anymore.

In the "not to long ago" it was a valid consideration to develop a QB by sitting him for a year, because he would still get a TON of practice and individual attention. Now that is not true. The Jets have a choice between 27 practices and a handful of reps each week on the Scout team, or 27 practices, reps with the ones for 2 or 3 practices every week and roughly 800 live snaps in NFL games.

Can anyone honestly tell me he will develop better with that ludicrously small amount of work before next year's OTAS?

It is a different world for QBs under the NDA. Darnold pretty much must start a minimum of 12 or 13 games if we him to develop, and not lose a year. But he should start Day One. 

 

 

 

So if they don’t get the year round work anymore, wouldn’t that mean they are less likely to be ready if they only played 2 college ball? 

  I agree, there is no way darnold should be the #3 and get limited reps. Why I think teddy will be traded. 

 You seem to leave out the fact the #2 still gets the reps with 2nd team, and I’m sure he would get reps with the 1st team too even as backup . Every team does this with rookies that are about to start. 

 We know where you stand, you already guaranteed darnold will start game 1. Don’t think we have forgotten you hedging that bet so boldly ? 

[CanadaSteve]

2 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

The two issues with this philosophy are:

1.  Whether you have any statistical evidence that QBs are helped by sitting?  Even anecdotal.  I do not see any.  Your argument appears to be - it won't hurt.  On that we can agree to disagree.  Especially with the newer (lack of) practice rules. 

2. You seem to be talking about what to do with the team is playing well.  I disagree with you there because Darnold is more important than 2018.  Going 10-6 is not a big deal, having a legit NFL QB is. More imporantly, if they go 6-2 with Bridgewater - what is your plan?  Play him the rest of the season?  Then what?  Give him $25M for 2019? 

Gee, 50 percent failure rate is a pretty good indication.  Bridgewater goes 6-2 as a starter and it sounds like that is a bad thing...About as SOJF as it gets.

Let's ALL just stop this.  NOBODY agrees here.  I am not changing your mind, you are not changing my mind, and quite frankly, it doesn't ******* matter anyway.  We aren't running the Jets.

[CanadaSteve]

2 hours ago, johnnysd said:

No one argues that the NFL needs a developmental league. But there isnt one, so that is not an option for Darnold. QB failure rates are high because it is the most difficult position to succeed at in any sport in the world. So many factors come into play it is ridiculous. I might be more on your side if we were hearing chatter already that he is struggling with the playbook, or struggling in the huddle, or struggling to play under center, or not picking up things quickly. But Bates and Bowles BTW have said the complete opposite in relation to Darnold. He also actually fits Bates offense much better than the other guys to begin with.

I agree with you on McClown. I truly believe if the Jets had offered him a decent salary as assistant QB coach he would have taken it. I do expect him to be QB coach next season.

 

And that is fair; I still wouldn't start him from day one, but that is fine.  I do disagree that the failure rate is the complexity of the position.  I think more would succeed if given the time to develop, but whatever.....that is just me.  

IF we are 2-6 at the break, give him his time.  If we are 2-4, why not.  But I just would not start him from day one.  That is me.  And with our situation, I disagree with the idea of NOT starting Bridgewater, unless someone in the next 6 weeks blows you away with an offer, or someone gets hurt between now and week 1 or 2 in the pre-season. 

That is ALL I ever was saying, since this thread was about "Why not starting Bridgewater."

[Ex-Rex]

On 6/20/2018 at 11:15 AM, j4jets said:

I’m a little confused when people say we should trade Teddy Bridgewater (TB2). There are a few issues with that. He’s either healthy or he’s not. If he’s not healthy, he has no trade value. If he’s healthy, then he’s either playing well or he’s not. If he plays bad in preseason, he has no value. If he plays well, then we shouldn’t trade him.

This brings me to my main point. If TB2 plays lights out in the preseason, we need to start him and be committed to him until the wheels come off. Having a good QB was the only reason Jets traded up to the third. If TB2 ends up being what we hope Darnold would be, then TB2 should stay as long as he’s good. Let Darnold learn and only let him start at any point in the future when he’s better than TB2, whether that’s in 4 games, or 4 years (assuming we resign of course)

Why should the Jets trade TB2 if he’s healthy and plays in the season like he has all off-season? We need a franchise QB and I don’t care one bit if that’s Darnold or TB. 

The Jets didn't invest the third overall pick in the draft for him to be behind Bridgewater. If he plays well in pre season the Jets could recoup a draft pick. If he plays lights out it could be as high as a second rounder. I don't want no QB controversy - the Jets need Darnold to play before the season is over.

[#27TheDominator]

2 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

Gee, 50 percent failure rate is a pretty good indication.  Bridgewater goes 6-2 as a starter and it sounds like that is a bad thing...About as SOJF as it gets.

Let's ALL just stop this.  NOBODY agrees here.  I am not changing your mind, you are not changing my mind, and quite frankly, it doesn't ******* matter anyway.  We aren't running the Jets.

You want to stop, but you don't respond to the question, you just repeat yourself.  We don't have to agree. Do you have some correlation between starting early and the 50% failure rate? I don't see it, but I guess you answered that in one of your next posts.  

If the Jets go 6-2 because of Bridgewater then it is a bad thing that they only signed him for one year.  If they are 6-2 and it isn't because of Bridgewater it is better to find out sooner, rather than later.  Do you forget the issues with winning with a QB on a one year deal?  Was the 2016 offseason really that long ago? 

 

[Jetsplayer21]

All this debating is useless. We know Mac and Bowles do not give 1 dam what the fans want. They will start Darnold ONLY when THEY think the time is right for him. I will give them credit for that at least, they might not be the smartest guys in most rooms, but they don’t buckle to fan pressure like giants.

[JohnnyLV]

2 hours ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

All this debating is useless. We know Mac and Bowles do not give 1 dam what the fans want. They will start Darnold ONLY when THEY think the time is right for him. I will give them credit for that at least, they might not be the smartest guys in most rooms, but they don’t buckle to fan pressure like giants.

That statement is true 99.99999% of the time. However, when a team drafts a QB this high, it is not always left up to the coach and GM. At some point, the owner just says I want to see my new toy.

[Jetsplayer21]

17 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

That statement is true 99.99999% of the time. However, when a team drafts a QB this high, it is not always left up to the coach and GM. At some point, the owner just says I want to see my new toy.

More like “ now that we are out of the playoffs, we need to sell some tickets, steal headlines.”

Im surprised the Johnsons  did not pressure them to put in hackenberg end of the year. 

They could have said “ ok why did we draft this guy in the second round, pay him millions to sit on the bench for 2 years ? End of another bad season, our #1 is down, our #2 looks like the number 2 you step in at a horse farm, let’s give the fans a bone.”

But they didn’t. 

[CanadaSteve]

2 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

You want to stop, but you don't respond to the question, you just repeat yourself.  We don't have to agree. Do you have some correlation between starting early and the 50% failure rate? I don't see it, but I guess you answered that in one of your next posts.  

If the Jets go 6-2 because of Bridgewater then it is a bad thing that they only signed him for one year.  If they are 6-2 and it isn't because of Bridgewater it is better to find out sooner, rather than later.  Do you forget the issues with winning with a QB on a one year deal?  Was the 2016 offseason really that long ago? 

 

So, let me be clear: What you are saying is you see absolutely no correlation to QB's being thrown to the wolves and the fifty percent failure rate. Honest question, because to me, that is THE glaring reason as to why the NFL needs a developmental league, and why so many fail.  I honestly think guys like Warren Moon, Joe Theisman, Doug Flutie, and Jeff Garcia had success in the NFL because they got to play the QB position for awhile before making the jump.  I honestly believe more QB's would succeed if that were the case, and why so many of them fail.  

So, with this idea that it is a bad thing to sign Bridgewater long-term if he wins.....This just fuels the fire for the Mac-can-do-no-right crowd.  We sign him to a three year deal, even though he should be on a one year deal to see how that knee is, and it doesn't work, people scream bloody murder.  We sign him to a year and he plays well, people scream bloody murder that we didn't sign him for more years.

I personally have NO issue with drafting Darnold AND having Bridgewater play lights out.  There is no controversy there.  If Bridgewater is playing lights out, and is sititng 6-2, he plays.  Darnold will play when he earns it.  I really do not see it being a problem:  Its not even a problem, its a great problem to have, one we have not ever had for this franchise.

Do I think it happens?  Not at all.  But I would prefer to start him and see rather than starting the 39 year-old journeyman.  

[JetsTalk247]

 

[j4jets]

14 hours ago, johnnysd said:

What does that matter? There were 4 highly rated QBs and the Jets got not only the one they valued the highest but the highest rated QB on the majority of boards, and the prospect many think is the best since Luck. Can he bust? I guess, but most of the busts had much much much bigger question marks than Darnold, and the fact that QBs bust is not a reason on any level not to start him.

And I’m sure the other 50+ quarterbacks taken in the first 3 picks were also highly rated. Just saying we shouldn’t be putting all the eggs in one basket just yet. The Sanchez egg basket got crushed by Brandon Moore’s Butt. 

[j4jets]

11 hours ago, Ex-Rex said:

The Jets didn't invest the third overall pick in the draft for him to be behind Bridgewater. If he plays well in pre season the Jets could recoup a draft pick. If he plays lights out it could be as high as a second rounder. I don't want no QB controversy - the Jets need Darnold to play before the season is over.

If he plays lights out against the starters and carries that with him in the regular season, I’d be furious in gaining a measly 2nd rounder when we just gave up a boatload of draft capital to draft a guy to be hopefully playing lights out. 

IF TB is “lights out”, SD better stay on the bench. 

[Philc1]

9 hours ago, JetsTalk247 said:

 

Even more important question:

 

Does anyone want Bridgewater?

 

[#27TheDominator]

11 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

So, let me be clear: What you are saying is you see absolutely no correlation to QB's being thrown to the wolves and the fifty percent failure rate. Honest question, because to me, that is THE glaring reason as to why the NFL needs a developmental league, and why so many fail.  I honestly think guys like Warren Moon, Joe Theisman, Doug Flutie, and Jeff Garcia had success in the NFL because they got to play the QB position for awhile before making the jump.  I honestly believe more QB's would succeed if that were the case, and why so many of them fail.  

So, with this idea that it is a bad thing to sign Bridgewater long-term if he wins.....This just fuels the fire for the Mac-can-do-no-right crowd.  We sign him to a three year deal, even though he should be on a one year deal to see how that knee is, and it doesn't work, people scream bloody murder.  We sign him to a year and he plays well, people scream bloody murder that we didn't sign him for more years.

I personally have NO issue with drafting Darnold AND having Bridgewater play lights out.  There is no controversy there.  If Bridgewater is playing lights out, and is sititng 6-2, he plays.  Darnold will play when he earns it.  I really do not see it being a problem:  Its not even a problem, its a great problem to have, one we have not ever had for this franchise.

Do I think it happens?  Not at all.  But I would prefer to start him and see rather than starting the 39 year-old journeyman.  

Right or wrong, there is no time to season QBs in today's NFL.  I think the "thrown to the wolves" argument is way overstated.  It didn't hurt Manning.  Brady sat for a year, but he was a middling prospect and that was the main reason he didn't get a shot. Same for Cousins.  Ryan, Wilson, Roethlisberger, Wentz, Stafford, etc all seem to be doing fine as day 1 starters.  Others, like Flacco, Dalton, Newton have started from day 1.  Have any of them had this great improvement or regression from developmental time?  I don't see it. 

Signing Bridgewater long-term is not going to happen.  That is my point.  If they thought he could be a viable starter, they could have worked in a team option.  Something between $10M and franchise money.  As it is, I have been arguing with people that think that we can start him, then franchise him (at $25-27M!) and then be able to trade him.  That is nonsense.  Teams did not want him at $6M this year, but they are going to give up picks (I heard a 1st!) for the right to pay him $27M for one year?  I complained about it when they did it with Fitzpatrick.  They let that bearded ****er hold them up all off-season and if he played well, the 2017 off-season would have been a repeat.  Think about that.  That was best case scenario.

I don't have a huge problem with letting Bridgewater beat out McCown, but you seem to ignore the very real possibility that Darnold and McCown outplay him.  If that is the case, what do you do?   

[CanadaSteve]

1 hour ago, #27TheDominator said:

Right or wrong, there is no time to season QBs in today's NFL.  I think the "thrown to the wolves" argument is way overstated.  It didn't hurt Manning.  Brady sat for a year, but he was a middling prospect and that was the main reason he didn't get a shot. Same for Cousins.  Ryan, Wilson, Roethlisberger, Wentz, Stafford, etc all seem to be doing fine as day 1 starters.  Others, like Flacco, Dalton, Newton have started from day 1.  Have any of them had this great improvement or regression from developmental time?  I don't see it. 

Signing Bridgewater long-term is not going to happen.  That is my point.  If they thought he could be a viable starter, they could have worked in a team option.  Something between $10M and franchise money.  As it is, I have been arguing with people that think that we can start him, then franchise him (at $25-27M!) and then be able to trade him.  That is nonsense.  Teams did not want him at $6M this year, but they are going to give up picks (I heard a 1st!) for the right to pay him $27M for one year?  I complained about it when they did it with Fitzpatrick.  They let that bearded ****er hold them up all off-season and if he played well, the 2017 off-season would have been a repeat.  Think about that.  That was best case scenario.

I don't have a huge problem with letting Bridgewater beat out McCown, but you seem to ignore the very real possibility that Darnold and McCown outplay him.  If that is the case, what do you do?   

There is a VERY real possibility that Darnold and McCown outplay him.  But the only way we find that out is if Teddy plays.  And IF Teddy outplays them, he should start.  Again, I do not understand the viewpoint as to why this is bad.  I acknowledge it is a long shot;  I don't think his knee is going to withstand the pounding of the NFL game.  But what if it does, and what if he improves?  I don't get rid of him to stop a potential QB controversy.  You make Darnold beat him.  That is how competition works, and how it improves everyone around them.

And it is great to say Roethlisberger, Stafford, Wentz, etc. are doing fine as starters.  They are.  But they are the 50 percent that succeeded.  If you quote the ones that are fine, you have to also mention the JaMarcus Russel's, Vince Young's and David Carr's.  Brady sat, Rodgers sat, Cousins sat...who knows?  Maybe there is something to not rushing QB's through the system. 

But as you state, it really doesn't matter because a) There is no developmental/minor league system, right or wrong; and b) We are all just sitting here conjecturing on a website without any influence on the process. 

[slats]

17 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

And it is great to say Roethlisberger, Stafford, Wentz, etc. are doing fine as starters.  They are.  But they are the 50 percent that succeeded.  If you quote the ones that are fine, you have to also mention the JaMarcus Russel's, Vince Young's and David Carr's.  Brady sat, Rodgers sat, Cousins sat...who knows?  Maybe there is something to not rushing QB's through the system. 

1

This is where you completely lose me. Darnold just doesn't have anywhere near the question marks or red flags that guys like JaMarcus or Vince Young had. He's probably a better prospect than Big Ben, Stafford, or Wentz, too. 

This is exactly the type of player you get into the starting lineup as quickly as you can. The Jets best chance to surprise people this year is Darnold starting and playing like he did in school. McCown and Teddy are both, really, just steady hands. Darnold's the only guy in that QB room that has the potential to be special.